[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian kernel version for lenny?



Hi

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 12:40:51PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> hello 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:14:51AM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > 
> > I'm the maintainer of kernel-patch-openvz (soon linux-patch-openvz)
> > and I would like to know which version of the linux kernel that
> > you think will be part of Lenny?
> 
> why is it not linked to linux-module-extra?

What is linux-module-extra? I have not heard about it before.
 
> > The reason is that the porting process for a specific kernel version
> > is rather high for upstream, because Debian and pristine kernel
> > do have rather lot of differences. The openvz kernel patch is also
> > very big (~ 700kB).
> 
> i saw that openvz patch comes quite late too after upstream stable
> release.

Yes that is probably the case. This is the main reason behind my question.
Upstream is the one that ask me. :) They want to know where to focus
their resources.

> well porting is the oot trouble, but the openvz do very cool cleanups
> along the namespace additions. although i kinda doubt that it will
> be ready for lenny release. the next trouble is that vserver left

We successfully managed it last release, but it was not that easy to convince
the release managers. ;)

> tracking mainline since 2.6.22.

Ahh I was not aware of that. Do you know if Micah is working on that?

> we have not settled for the lenny version it is certainly > 2.6.24.
> Most probable candidate is 2.6.26.

Ok, thanks that is really good to know.

Best regards,

// Ola

> best regards
> 
> -- 
> maks
>  
> 

-- 
 --- Inguza Technology AB --- MSc in Information Technology ----
/  ola@inguza.com                    Annebergsslingan 37        \
|  opal@debian.org                   654 65 KARLSTAD            |
|  http://inguza.com/                Mobile: +46 (0)70-332 1551 |
\  gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9  /
 ---------------------------------------------------------------


Reply to: